Ideas for Winnipeg’s City Hall (5 of 5)

All week we have discussed ideas on how Winnipeg’s City Hall could be improved. Those ideas included increasing the number of civic wards, accepting party politics in City Hall and eliminating the Executive Policy Committee.

Today we’re going to float an idea that would be much more radical; what if we scrapped the current system and adopted something completely different?

Winnipeg currently operates under a variation of a Mayor-council government model where citizens vote citywide for a mayor as well as a local councillor. This group then hires, on the advisement of the EPC, professional managers to carry out many day-to-day administrative operations.  What if Winnipeg tried something different?

What if instead of electing councillors and a mayor at election time people were asked to vote for a commissioner responsible for a portfolio? A hybrid approach similar to Portland, Oregon where they elect commissioners who are responsible for managing specific job duties. Having positions with a direct correlation to services could attract innovative and highly qualified candidates to the field who could provide Winnipeg with vision and purpose.

Consider this idea like a public job interview for all the important functions of civic leadership. Rather than having an elected official hiring someone to manage the city’s waste management program, the public elects the individual with best credentials and ideas on how that portfolio should be administered. Imagine someone with an ecology background managing the water and waste management portfolio, or an ambitious architect overseeing planning and property development.

Now is the time to start imagining how our city could be better. Some changes could be implemented quickly and with little difficulty. Eliminating the Executive Policy Committee which in it’s current design is prone to corruption and cronyism or embracing a party platform format could see significant improvements on how decision are made at City Hall. Other ideas like adding, and inherently shrinking, electoral wards would provide a better representation of the views of the electorate on civic matters. There are also more radical approaches like scrapping the current system altogether and trying to implement something new and innovative.

Regardless of the type of changes people want to see at City Hall, now is the time to start discussing and planning. For me, I believe it is time for the City of Winnipeg to stop operating like it is a private business burdened by bothersome communities and starts running like a large and diverse community that conducts and supports progressive and responsible business.

Ideas for Winnipeg’s City Hall (4 of 5)

Halloween, an appropriate day to discuss one of the scariest things at Winnipeg’s City Hall, the Executive Policy Committee.

Eliminating the Executive Policy Committee is something often discussed and its dissolution is promoted by many. It would be cost neutral and could have a great impact on civic politics in Winnipeg.

The EPC is a select group of councilors chosen on the whim of the mayor. This group is supposed to be an impartial body that “formulates and presents recommendations to council respecting policies, plans, budgets, by-laws and other matters that affect the city as a whole.”

In its current form, there is nothing to prevent the mayor from filling the EPC with like minded individuals to promote self serving policies that would only require the support of one other member of council. That is to say the support of only one other member providing every councillor is in attendance for the vote in order to pass any motion proposed. An example of the work the EPC currently conducts is that it was through their recommendation that the city hire a Chief Administrative Officer, who was did not have the experience or credentials to match the position and has since been forced to resign because of controversy and allegations of corruption. The EPC also put forth a motion he be replaced by another person linked to and named in the same controversy the previous CAO resigned over. (What!?!)

Without an EPC policy ideas could simply be brought to council meetings by individual councillors and be debated and voted. Part of the advantage of this method is that each ward would have equal representation and decision could then be made based on a citywide perspective. Alternatively we could look to models used in Vancouver, Calgary or Regina who all have a variance of a board style system composed of both councillors and citizens who together make recommendations to City Council. The biggest difference between this board style and an EPC system is that it invites participation and accountability to the people the government is elected to serve.

I believe the idea behind having an Executive Policy Committee is to expedite the policy development process, but all it seems to do is open City Hall to accusations of corruption. What do you think, does Winnipeg need an EPC?

Ideas for Winnipeg’s City Hall (3 of 5)

Welcome, or welcome back, for the 3rd idea on how to change Winnipeg’s City Hall. For a summary of the ideas see Monday’s post and you can also review yesterday’s post on adding more wards to Winnipeg’s civic landscape.

Today we’re looking at the idea of embracing the idea of political parties at the civic level.

We’ve discussed how adding wards would have a significant impact not only on policy and representation, but it would also impact the city’s budget. If we want to see progressive change at City Hall without impacting the budget there are a couple of relatively easy ways to do so.

One idea would be to accept political parties in Winnipeg civic politics. Currently Winnipeg operates in a faux belief that councilors are, and should be, politically unaffiliated. This guise only seems to serve to muddle issues and confuse voters. If Winnipeg were to adopt an open, party affiliated, electoral process it would provide voters a decent idea of where the competing politicians stand on issues during election campaigns.

There are two ways Winnipeg can do this, the first being to adopt offshoots of a provincial or federal parties and their ideologies. The other is to follow the lead of a city like Vancouver where they have separate parties dedicated solely to civic issues.

Part of the advantage to moving to party affiliated candidates is that political parties create a clearly articulated vision for the future. Parties would enable people come together to decide how to spend public money and to focus on issues during an election campaign. Political parties are inherently more democratic as well. Party policy is proposed, debated, vetted and voted upon by party members at conventions and therefore engage a large segment of people. Does anyone know how current councillors decide what they support or why they take certain positions?

A party format would also make elections in individual wards less about a particular pothole or a broken streetlight and more about a broad vision, something Winnipeg could certainly use. It can be argued that parties would improve voter turnout and public engagement. Party organization would bring structure to civic politics, provide the capacity to organize volunteers, enable more people canvass with a clear message and bring more people out to vote on Election Day.

What do you think, should Winnipeg continue to tow the line that Parties do not belong in City Hall? Share your thoughts and come back tomorrow when we look at the purpose of the Executive Policy Committee.

Ideas for Winnipeg’s City Hall (2 of 5)

Yesterday’s piece introduced some ideas on how we might be able to improve Winnipeg’s City Hall. Among the ideas was to increase the number of councillors, and thereby decreasing the size of wards.

Everyone in Winnipeg is currently represented by 15 city councillors. That is one representative for every 44,241 people according to recent census data. That is an incredible amount of people with diverse needs and views. When coupled with a relatively low population density in Winnipeg, the geographic area covered by each councillor is quite large. How can a councillor be expected to effectively advocate for their ward?

For comparison, at the provincial level, the City of Winnipeg has 31 Members of the Legislative Assembly to represent citizens. That comes to 21,407 constituents per MLA, a much more manageable number. A chart depicting cities of similar size to Winnipeg shows the number of constituents per councillor:

City	Population*	Councilors	Constituents/Councilor
Winnipeg	663,617	15	44,241
Ottawa	883,391	23	38,408
Edmonton	812,201	12	67,683
Hamilton	519,949	15	34,663
Quebec City	516,622	27	19,134
Halifax	413,710	16	25,856
Regina	193,100	10	19,310

*2011 Statistics Canada Census Data

Of cities with similar population, only Edmonton has a larger discrepancy of voters to elected civic representatives than Winnipeg. If we were to compare ourselves to our neighbouring capital in Saskatchewan, we see that we have more than double the ratio of Regina.

When Winnipeg was amalgamated under the City of Winnipeg act in 1972, city council consisted of 50 wards. This was reduced to 29 in 1977 and 15 in 1992.

Year	Population*	Councilors	Constituents/Councilor
1976	560,874	50	11,217
1981	564,373	29	19,461
1991	616,790	29	21,268
2001	619,544	15	41,302
2011	663,617	15	44,241

*Historical Statistics Canada Census Data

If Winnipeg were to return to a pre-1992 ratio of about 20-25,000 citizens per councillor it would provide citizens with a greater opportunity to access their local civic representative, better representation of issues important to them and more diversity at City Hall to debate policy issues.

Another advantage to shrinking the physical size of wards would be more inherent accountability. Concerns like the recent boiled water advisory only directly affected a small portion of a ward. If the sitting politician does enough to appease voters in another section of their ward, they won’t be held accountable for inaction and poor management in other areas. Currently it is next to impossible to defeat an incumbent councillor as their constituency is so huge. It is also nearly impossible to canvass an entire ward during an election campaign. As a challenger to the sitting councillor it is very difficult, and expensive, to get your name an views out to voters.

Of course adding wards would be an expensive alteration to city politics. It is estimated that each new ward would cost in upwards of $175,000 annually. No one ever claimed democracy would be cheap. What do you think, would adding more councillors improve City Hall? Share your thoughts and come back tomorrow and Thursday as we’ll explore some inexpensive changes that could transform Winnipeg’s civic political landscape.

Ideas for Winnipeg’s City Hall

With recent troubling news from Winnipeg City Hall surrounding items like the Fire Hall Audit, Boiled Water Advisories, Police Headquarters Cost Overruns and Brown Water Concerns it is time to consider making changes to Winnipeg’s civic political landscape.

There are some changes that could be made that would have a significant impact on how civic issues are addressed like redrawing the city wards or returning to representative ratios pre-1992. The current size of wards makes it very difficult for a city councillor to take a position to advocate for the needs of their constituents.

An easier modification would be to do away with the notion that partisan politics does not belong in city hall. Reality is that the majority of councillors are affiliated with political parties and if people were to run under the banner of a party, voters would have a better idea of where a candidate stands on important issues.

Further changes that can be made to ameliorate the current electoral system in place for Winnipeg would be to eliminate the Executive Policy Committee and treat each elected member equally.

There are other more radical considerations that could be made including adopting a completely new system that could make more democratic decisions on behalf of citizens.

Whether it is smaller and relatively easy changes or significant overhauls of the entire system it is time to start discussing change. The next civic election is scheduled for October 22, 2014 and if we want to see changes that can make Winnipeg a better place to live for everyone, ideas need to be discussed now so they can be vetted and adopted for the subsequent electoral cycle in 2018.

Each day this week I plan to post more on each of these ideas. Please share your feedback and what you would like to see changed at Winnipeg City Hall.

Tuesday Debate Day – Mayors

We’re back again, to give you an opportunity to share your input on political issues.

Yesterday Toronto’s Mayor Rob Ford was found guilty of violating provincial conflict of interest rules and was forced to vacate the Toronto mayoralty. Earlier this month Montreal mayor Gérald Tremblay resigned in the face of conflict of interest violations alleged in the Charbonneau Commission.  This coming April, Winnipeg’s Mayor, Sam Katz, will be in court over a conflict of interest lawsuit.

These three cases are alike yet different all at the same time. This week we’ll take a brief look at each circumstance and discuss whether they should all be treated the same or not.

Starting in Montreal, Gérald Tremblay’s resignation stems from allegations that he and his administration were involved in, or aware of, large illegal cash contributions to unions and governments from corporations bidding on construction contracts. This scandal is so massive in scale it required Provincial Officials to call for a a public inquiry known as the Charbonneau Commission. It is like something you would expect to see in the movies complete with corruption at the highest levels, exclusive clubs of the powerful elite of Montreal, and even ties to the notorious mafia crime family of Vito Rizzuto. This mayoral vacancy is high drama and comes without actual formal charges against the mayor, at least not yet. If it were found to be true that Tremblay received, or was aware of, funds being exchanged for construction contracts, it would be a pretty clear case of conflict of interest. From there, losing his job as mayor would only be the start of his concerns.

In Toronto, Rob Ford was forced out of office because he, as a city councilor in 2010 and before he was elected mayor, violated fundraising rules while soliciting donations for his football club’s charity. As a result he was expected to pay back a little over $3000. From my understanding, Ford ignored the fact he was expected to pay the donors back and a year later was elected mayor. This year he, along with other city council members, voted to rescind the previous decision that he would have to pay back the money and they would not pursue the matter any further. Because he didn’t pay back the donations, which relatively speaking is a small amount, and because spoke at and participated in the council vote the court found him guilty of conflict of interest charges resulting in removing him as Mayor of Toronto.

Now here in Winnipeg, Mayor Sam Katz will be in court this April over allegations he spent city money on a council Christmas party at a restaurant he used to own. The allegation is that Katz is in conflict because he is using city funds  without a fair bidding process and that the money was used with someone he had previously had business dealings with.

As we can see these a three very different circumstances with varying degrees of severity. What do you think? Is conflict of interest a simple matter where no-matter the incident in question people should lose their jobs?

Add your comment and join the conversation!

An Open Letter to Ann Coulter

My apologies for the lack of Tuesday Posts the last few weeks, I’ve been a little overwhelmed and busy. (If others would like to contribute to the Tuesday Debate Day, please let me know, I’d love some help!)

I did want to take a moment re-blog this post related to American Politics. I normally steer clear of the US political world as I find the negativity surrounding it so deplorable and full of vitriol. American elections are the politics of mean to the extreme in my opinion.

This blog is a refreshing response to a lot of the elements that surround the US system that often illicit the negative feelings I have. Please take a look, let us know what you think and share it. Let’s spread the good word!

An Open Letter to Ann Coulter.

Tuesday Debate Day – Justin Trudeau in the race for Liberal Leader

Welcome to another Tuesday Debate Day! Earlier this week Michael wrote a wonderful post discussing Political Leadership Races with a focus on our provincial and federal Liberal Parties and mentioned the Quebec Liberals as well.

This evening, in one of the poorest kept secrets of the last few weeks, Justin Trudeau officially entered the race to replace Interim Leader, Bob Rae. Historically the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) has been a virtual juggernaut on federal level since confederation. In fact, Stephane Dion & Michael Ignatieff were the first full-time Liberal Leaders who did not serve as Prime Ministers of Canada. Since the 2004 Election, the LPC has been in sharp decline going from 172 to 135 to 103 to 77 to the current 34 seats in successive elections. This can also be demonstrated by noting that since 2004 the LPC has gone from have 57% of all the seats in the House of Commons to 11% in just 7 years. Juggernaut to Have-not in just a few short years.

Today’s question: do you think Justin Trudeau can raise the sunken ship that is the Liberal Party of Canada? As a follow-up, if he cannot will anyone or is the Liberal Party of Canada on the verge of disappearing altogether?

Add your comment and join the conversation!

Tuesday Debate Day! – Mandatory Voting

Welcome to Tuesday Debate Day for September 25, 2012! This is an open forum for you to give your input into the political discourse. This week we’ll examine an issue that was brought up as a side note within a press conference held by Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand.

The Chief Electoral Officer is the person responsible for overseeing federal elections. Simply stated, his job is to make sure everyone follows the rules set out in the Canadian Elections Act. When an infraction is suspected or detected, the Chief Electoral Officer investigates and reports back to Parliament, often with recommendations on how to proceed. From there Parliament will decided whether to send the matter to a committee for further investigation or to the court system for a legal ruling on the matter in question. An interesting fact about the Chief Electoral Officer is that he or she is one of two resident Canadians over the age of 18 who can not vote. Can you name the other resident Canadian who is ineligible to vote? (Answer at the bottom)

During Marc Mayrand’s press conference he noted that there is widespread apathy amongst youth, which he fears is not simply a temporary rebellion. He believes this is particularly unsettling and does not bode well for the future of our country. One solution to this problem, although not currently being pursued by Elections Canada, would be to legislate compulsory voting. This is where our debate question for this week comes from: should voting be made mandatory in Canada?

Compulsory Voting would entail a system where the public are required to vote in elections, or at least attend a polling station, on voting day. If an eligible voter does not participate, without a valid reason, he or she would be in violation of the law and subject to punishments like fines, community service, or even prison time.

What do you think, should everyone have to vote?

Add your comment and join the conversation! (Scroll over the photo below for the answer to the trivia question)

Tuesday Debate Day – The Return

Welcome back to Tuesday Debate Day! We’ve been on a bit of a sabbatical since August, but with the return of our Members of Parliament to the House of Commons in Ottawa seems like a good time for us to return too. For those who are new to this blog feature, it is a weekly forum where we will post about a political topic and open the floor for a civil discussion revolving around the issue at hand. As the writer I reserve the right to question and express view points that may not align with my personal views in order to incite further debate and discussion.

This week’s topic will also coincide with the House of Commons reconvening and centre around the concept of the Politics of Mean. What we are talking about here is the general tone in the political sphere and in particular the relationship between political parties and between parties and voters. The discourse in the world of politics, for our focus Canadian politics, often comes off as mean, ornery and sometimes downright ugly.

This can include attack ads, like one on television and the internet a few years back where one party paid for an advertisement  where a bird pooped on the leader of another party. Or a common tactic where the opposite party is conveyed in black and white with ominous music playing while a scary voice-over reads an interpretation of that party’s platform. Politics of Mean also entails the actual discourse within what should be the hallowed hall of our parliamentary democracy. Ask yourself if the behaviours of our elected officials within their workplace would be acceptable where you or your parents work. The name calling and bullying is deplorable at times. Yet another example of this is on social media where we have an example of one MP sharing the tweets of an account that published the details of an MP from another party’s divorce proceedings among other unsavoury things. These are just a few examples of how our political system has adopted and adapted to a landscape we can label the Politics of Mean.

This topic has many points we can debate and we are just going to do this week’s discussion “scramble” style by throwing out a few questions for you to comment upon, but please feel free to take this discussion in any direction you would like.

Do politics/politicians need to act this way?

Is this simply the culmination of partisan politics?

Can parties win, or even survive, in today’s political climate without slinging mud?

Are you more inclined to vote because you are against someone or something?

Would you be more likely to support a party if they played nice with others?

Do the ends justify the means? (Ha! punny)

Add your comment and join the conversation!